TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the view that imposition of penalty to the extent of 100% in terms of Rule 15 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not justified. However, inasmuch as there has been a procedural and technical offence, though without any malafide, we deem it fit to put the appellant to some penalty. We accordingly reduce the penalty to 10% of the duty amount. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - E/55835/2013 - FINAL ORDER NO. 55971/2013 - Dated:- 1-4-2013 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa And Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J. P. Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri N. Pathak, DR PER : Archana Wadhwa 1. As the appellants have deposited the entire amount of duty of Rs. 36,47,971/- and interest and amount of Rs. 11,927 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, Shri J.P. Kaushik appearing for the appellant is not disputing confirmation of demand and submits that in terms of Rule 6 (6), they were required to pay back an amount of 10%, at the time of clearance of their final exempted products. However, he submits that they did not reverse the said amount under a bona fide belief that Rule 6 (6) does not call for such reversal in case of clearance of exempted goods against an international bidding. Notification No. 6/2006 CE, under which they cleared their final products and also exempted goods cleared against international bidding. As such, they were under an impression that the supplies to Delhi Metro were against an international bidding and as such, the provisions of Rule 6 (6) of Cenvat Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention to evade duty inasmuch as the entire facts of availment of cenvat credit in respect of common inputs and clearance of their final products under an exemption notification, were being reflected by them in their monthly returns. As such, the entire facts were with the Revenue and the appellant was also never guided by the Department to reverse the 10% amount. As such, we are of the view that imposition of penalty to the extent of 100% in terms of Rule 15 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not justified. However, inasmuch as there has been a procedural and technical offence, though without any malafide, we deem it fit to put the appellant to some penalty. We accordingly reduce the penalty to 10% of the duty amount. Stay petition and appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
